WATCH 'SPIN' IF WAR IS CALLED OFF

Editor -- Regarding the article by Gregory F. Treverton, "Why, for now, there will be no war with Iraq" (Insight section, Jan. 19): We have started to see a sort of contingency spin developing, if the United States indeed does not immediately unleash its aggression on Iraq. This latest effort follows the highly successful spin on the United States' defeat in the United Nations Security Council last November.

It seemed to me at that time the United States had been persuaded or even forced by other members of the Security Council to accept weapons inspections instead of rushing to war. The spin took the form of asserting that this defeat of American war policy was a great victory for American diplomacy. I was sorry to see our media accepting, and not challenging, the government line.

The new and still developing spin goes something like this: If the United States does not get its wish to invade Iraq, and an Arab- or Muslim-brokered deal is struck whereby Saddam Hussein leaves Iraq or another face-saving solution is found, then this is going to be presented as a great American victory brought about by U.S. willingness and preparedness to go to war. It's just a contingency spin up to now, since the top of the Bush government's wish list is to use as many war toys as possible in an effort to control Iraq's oil.

On the point of a U.S. "success short of war," because of this nation being "utterly prepared to go to war": If the Bush government's war machine is stopped, it will be because the world community and an increasing number of Americans have finally decided to withdraw their assent, regardless of American military might.

ANNE POIRIER

Berkeley

MASSES OF DATA

ABOUT OUR LIVES

Editor -- Your editorial, "Knowledge, power and your rights" (Jan. 19) suggested some frightening circumstances. Our government is amassing information about every individual in the country. That information can be used for good or evil. Much, if not most, of the information is not the government's business. That includes financial records, data on individual transactions, medical records, college transcripts and records of cell-phone calls and reading habits. That is an awesome collection of personal information.

At the same time, another dossier is being built -- our credit card numbers,

telephone and fax numbers and e-mail addresses -- that is available to every salesperson wanting to market or promote anything to us, whether we like it or not.

More and more, a growing business in America is for spam filters, privacy filters and call-blockers. This is not happenstance. The public seems to be hit by a double whammy in the information age. There is no place to hide.

AMY BELSER

Sausalito

MANY RELIGIONS

EQUALLY VALID

Editor -- Bravo to the Rev. Robert Warren Cromey (Letters, Jan. 19) for pointing out that religions other than Christianity are also valid faiths. Somewhere in the hearts of too many Christians is the lingering conviction that they must save the world by bringing people to Christ.

The current thought in contemporary seminaries reflects the image of many different roads leading to the mountaintop, Christianity being only one of them. The roads of other cultures and religions are equally valid belief systems.

Perhaps it is time for all believers to have a dialogue about their belief systems and their blind faith, especially when faith is based on Scriptures that served a civilization thousands of years ago. A solid bit of reasoning, rather than faith, might shed some long-needed light on our moral attitudes, social behaviors and political entanglements.

JAMES DUNNE

Mendocino

SUPERVISORS ACT

ON PET PROJECT

Editor -- The San Francisco Board of Supervisors wastes time at taxpayers' expense passing ordinances like the one designating people with pets as "owners or guardians" (Debra J. Saunders' column, "Going to the dogs," Jan. 19). All the ordinance will accomplish is to get us one step closer to the legal right of dogs to run free in parks while kids remain fenced in ugly, cold and uninspiring play pens to be protected from dogs.

There are already laws that protect pets from abuse, and changing their status to near-human won't change that. Nor will it make anyone treat an animal any differently.

Why doesn't the ordinance award wild animals equal protection from the abuse they suffer from dog owners who allow their "companions" to tromp habitats in natural areas?